Function point: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:39, 16 April 2019

Revision as of 22:32, 16 April 2019

Line 6:

'''1. ISO Standards'''

* [[COSMIC functional size measurement|COSMIC]]FiSMA: [http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=54849 ISO/IEC 1976129881:2011]2010 SoftwareInformation technology – Systems and software engineering. – AFiSMA 1.1 functional size measurement method.

* FiSMA: [http[IFPUG]]://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=56418 ISO/IEC 2988120926:2010]2009 InformationSoftware technologyand –systems Systemsengineering and– softwareSoftware engineeringmeasurement – FiSMA 1.1IFPUG functional size measurement method.

* Mark-II: [http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35603 ISO/IEC 20968:2002] Software engineering – Ml II Function Point Analysis – Counting Practices Manual

* [[IFPUG]]: [http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=51717 ISO/IEC 20926:2009] Software and systems engineering – Software measurement – IFPUG functional size measurement method.

* Nesma: ISO/IEC 24570:2018 Software engineering – Nesma functional size measurement method version 2.3 – Definitions and counting guidelines for the application of Function Point Analysis

* Mark-II: [http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35603 ISO/IEC 20968:2002] Software engineering – Ml II Function Point Analysis – Counting Practices Manual

* Nesma:[[COSMIC functional [httpssize measurement|COSMIC]]://www.iso.org/standard/72505.html ISO/IEC 2457019761:2018]2011 Software engineering. – NesmaA functional size measurement method version 2.3 – Definitions and counting guidelines for the application of Function Point Analysis

'''2. OMG Specification for Automated Function Point'''

[[Object Management Group|OMG]], an open membership and not-for-profit computer industry standards consortium, has adopted the Automated Function Point (AFP) specification led by the [[CISQ|Consortium for IT Software Quality]]. It provides a standard for automating the Function Point counting according to the guidelines of the International Function Point User Group ([[IFPUG]]) However, the current implementations of this standard have a limitation in being able to distinguish External Output (EO) from External Inquiries (EQ) out of the box, without some upfront configuration.<ref>OMG/CISQ Specification "Automated Function Points",February 2013, OMG Document Number ptc/2013-02-01 http://www.omg.org/spec/AFP/1.0</ref>

== Introduction ==

Line 26:

* Feature points – Adds changes to improve applicability to systems with significant internal processing (e.g., operating systems, communications systems). This allows accounting for functions not readily perceivable by the user, but essential for proper operation.

* [[Weighted Micro Function Points]] – One of the newer models (2009) which adjusts function points using weights derived from program flow complexity, operand and operator vocabulary, object usage, and algorithm.

*Fuzzy Function Points - Proposes a fuzzy and gradative transition between low x medium and medium x high complexities<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lima|first=Osias de Souza|last2=Farias|first2=Pedro Porfírio Muniz|last3=Belchior|first3=Arnaldo Dias|date=2003-06-01|title=Fuzzy Modeling for Function Points Analysis|url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023716628585|journal=Software Quality Journal|language=en|volume=11|issue=2|pages=149–166|doi=10.1023/A:1023716628585|issn=1573-1367}}</ref>

== Contrast ==

The use of function points in favor of lines of code seek to address several additional issues:

* The risk of "inflation" of the created lines of code, and thus reducing the value of the measurement system, if developers are incentivized to be more productive. FP advocates refer to this as measuring the size of the solution instead of the size of the problem.

* Lines of Code ([[Source lines of code|LOC]]) measures reward low level languages because more lines of code are needed to deliver a similar amount of functionality to a higher level language.<ref>Jones, C. and Bonsignour O. The Economics of Software Quality, Addison-Wesley, 2012. pp. 105-109.</ref> C. Jones offers a method of correcting this in his work.<ref>Jones, C. Applied Software Measurement: Assuring Productivity and Quality. McGraw-Hill. June 1996.</ref>

* LOC measures are not useful during early project phases where estimating the number of lines of code that will be delivered is challenging. However, Function Points can be derived from requirements and therefore are useful in methods such as estimation by proxy.

Line 40:

* [[COCOMO]] (Constructive Cost Model)

* [[Comparison of development estimation software]]

* [[COSMIC functional size measurement]]

* [[MK II FPA|Mark II method]]

* [[Object point]]

Line 49 ⟶ 48:

== References ==

{{Reflist|30em}}

== External links ==

* [http://www.ifpug.org/ The International Function Point Users Group (IFPUG)]

* [http://www.nesma.nl/english/ The Netherlands Software Metrics users Association (NESMA)]

* [http://www.cosmic-sizing.org/ Common Software Measurement International Consortium (COSMIC)]

* [http://www.isbsg.org ISBSG (International Software Benchmarking Standards Group)]

* [http://www.mai-net.org MAIN (Metrics Associations' International Network)]

* [http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MC.1994.10088 Function Points: A New Way of Looking at Tools]

* [http://www.fattocs.com/en/resources/faq.html Function Point Analysis FAQ]

* [http://www.omg.org/spec/AFP/1.0/ OMG Specifications for Automated Function Points]

* [http://www.fisma.fi/in-english/methods/ Finnish Software Measurement Association (FiSMA)]

[[Category:Software metrics]]